http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7367456

Buffet: Don't fool me again Knicks
Peter Schrager / FOXSports.com
Posted: 4 hours ago

A year ago around this time, I wrote a column in this very space insisting that the New York Knicks were going to make the 2007 NBA playoffs.
The response was unanimous: I was crazy.

The e-mails flooded in and I was annihilated on NBA message boards from coast to coast, country to country. I even read something on a Dutch web site calling me a "dwaas" -- which translated to "buffoon" or "fool".

Then something funny happened.

After a brouhaha overblown by the media in a mid-December game with the Nuggets, the Knicks began to play hard, inspired basketball. They won a heroic last-second thriller against Utah the next night out after the scrap, toppled Charlotte on a buzzer-beating tip-in with Michael Jordan in the stands a couple evenings after that, and then went and took down the Bulls. They held their own for a bit, played an entertaining brand of basketball and got contributions from some unlikely sources.

Scorned by their critics and dismissed by the casual NBA fan as one of the league's worst squads, the young Knicks began to gel. They were tough, gritty, and most important -- likeable. Rookie Renaldo Balkman quickly became a fan favorite, David Lee emerged as a bona fide matinee idol and Eddy Curry's name began appearing in NBA All Star discussions.

Following that game, the Knicks won 7 of their next 11, played .500 basketball for much of January and February, sneaking in gutsy road wins over the Lakers and Pacers. At the All Star Break, the Knicks were a few games under. 500, in the thick of the Eastern Conference playoff picture, and playing in front of entertained, satisfied crowds at Madison Square Garden.

Then the injury bug hit. David Lee twisted his ankle in a late February win over Milwaukee, Jamal Crawford went down following a majestic 53-point effort over the defending champion Heat, and Quentin Richardson struggled to recover from an early season bang-up. In March, Isiah Thomas' contract was re-worked, the Knicks started to slip without a scoring presence on the wing, and before you knew it, New York lost 13 of their last 16 and finished the year a disappointing 16 games under .500.


That Dutch blogger who called me a buffoon? He looked like a prophet after all. Despite the promising start and the various rays of hope in the depths of those winter months, New York missed the playoffs for the fifth time in six years. Spring had awoken, and the Knicks were nowhere in sight.

Surely, I wouldn't make the same mistake two years in a row, then, right? No way I'd ever predict big things for a team that just endured an off-season draped in a highly publicized sexual harassment scandal. No chance I'd envision improvement from a squad whose point guard acted downright loopy on a late-night Sunday sports wrap-up show, insisted he wanted to play in Italy multiple times, and inexplicably stuck up for Michael Vick all in the same summer. Under no circumstances could I ever suggest a playoff run for a team that features two of the biggest black holes in all of basketball, both playing -- both starting -- on the low blocks.

Maybe I could.

Call me crazy, but with yet another season featuring a watered-down Eastern Conference, a fully healthy squad, and what seems to be a collective chip on the team's shoulder, I think New York's pro hoops team is going to surprise some folks this year. Having attended Monday night's preseason win over the Celtics, I can tell you this: there's something different about the 2007 New York Knicks.

I noticed it after the team introductions just prior to the opening tip. In what reminded me of something you'd find at the end of a youth soccer game, the entire Knicks squad -- including the inactive players in street clothes -- lined up in two straight lines facing each other. One by one, each Knick passed by the others, looking each other straight in the face, slapping five. Marbury did it. So did Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph. Balkman, out with an injury and dressed in a dapper suit and tie, participated, too. It was a sign of team unity. The message was clear: The media's out for us; the rest of the NBA's writing us off. It's us against the world.

A week after losing by 40 in an exhibition game with these very same Celtics, the Knicks led pretty much wire-to-wire on Monday. The Garden, surprisingly crowded for a preseason game, fed off the energy. Adorned with new scoreboards and shot clocks, there seemed to be a new element in the MSG crowd, too. As a healthy Lee scored and rebounded in double digits, and the Randolph pounded away at the Celtics depth-challenged front line, you could feel an eminent buzz of optimism in the air. There was hope in the building; perhaps even a little pride.

Marbury played under control. Nate Robinson -- the Vegas Summer League MVP -- continued right where he left off in July. Both Curry and Randolph gave each other room to maneuver down low. For what felt like the first time in years, the Knicks were unselfish.

Yes, it was a meaningless exhibition game. I realize that. But I've been to dozens of meaningless exhibition games over the past few years. And trust me, neither the Knicks nor the C's were treating this like one. Robinson and Eddie House went at it all evening, gabbing back and forth and poking and prodding every step of the way. Kevin Garnett and Randolph -- two longtime division foes out west -- banged bodies down low. Dick Bavetta was even forced to separate a few players after some hard contact. Both teams wanted this one. A year ago, the Knicks probably would have found a way to lose it. On Monday night, they made sure they didn't.

A sign of things to come? Call me "pie in the sky," but I can't help but think so.

Reading through a lot of the early NBA previews popping up all over the Internet this week, it seems as though the consensus is in: The Knicks will implode, have character issues, and finish at the bottom of the NBA East. Fair enough.

But I think they'll be fine; if not more than fine.

Perhaps even a playoff team.

If New York can stay healthy and remain as focused as they looked on Monday night, there's no reason this squad can't win 38-42 games. And do so in a fun, entertaining and united fashion. A way that they showed they could play at times last season; a way that the New York fans would grow to love.

I can see it happening. I caught a glimpse of what could be with my own two eyes on Monday evening.

Then again, I've been wrong on this very topic before.

And you know what they say: Fool me once -- shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Or in Dutch, shame on the dwaas.

Wow, all that from a single preseason game. Completely ignoring the 40pt loss to Boston and the listless game against the Nets.

That was some pretty misinformed garbage. Almost an insult to people who actually follow the team.

What's wrong with being optimistic while we can?

Posted by Bippity10:

This is an optimistic post and yet the guy predicts the same amount of wins as many of the haters.

That's really not the point. The point is that he sees the team being able to make the playoffs. The number of wins isn't the issue. From season to season you compete against the competition in your Div and Conf. and whatever number of wins it takes to make the playoffs that's all you need. In a totally pure sense you'd want to be good enough not just to squeak in and be competitive in a weak div or conf., but you'd want at team that can compete against the league and legitimately vie for a title. Still for this team it's not really the number of wins as much as the style of play and level of improvement. I think we all want to see this team be as good as it can be.

In the end I want to see this team make the playoffs and with as much comp as we'll see this year it may end up that 42-44 wins is about right. I hope for more wins as i'm sure most of us do, but the point of the article is that this team will likely be better than many fans and media types predict. 38-42 wins is his range, but he's not saying that they can't win more than that.

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by Bippity10:

This is an optimistic post and yet the guy predicts the same amount of wins as many of the haters.

That's really not the point. The point is that he sees the team being able to make the playoffs. The number of wins isn't the issue. From season to season you compete against the competition in your Div and Conf. and whatever number of wins it takes to make the playoffs that's all you need. In a totally pure sense you'd want to be good enough not just to squeak in and be competitive in a weak div or conf., but you'd want at team that can compete against the league and legitimately vie for a title. Still for this team it's not really the number of wins as much as the style of play and level of improvement. I think we all want to see this team be as good as it can be.

In the end I want to see this team make the playoffs and with as much comp as we'll see this year it may end up that 42-44 wins is about right. I hope for more wins as i'm sure most of us do, but the point of the article is that this team will likely be better than many fans and media types predict. 38-42 wins is his range, but he's not saying that they can't win more than that.

He said perhaps stop misquoting him Nixluva you know how you have a pet peeve with misquoting/being misquoted. He clearly states.....

But I think they'll be fine; if not more than fine.

Perhaps even a playoff team.

And his perhaps is a weak endorsement because it's on the tail end. And if he feels this way no need to backhand the team at the end and state

Then again, I've been wrong on this very topic before.

And you know what they say: Fool me once -- shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Or in Dutch, shame on the dwaas.

I love the range of wins also... Lovers are often times rangy with their projections.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 10-24-2007 3:02 PM]

Posted by islesfan:

Why do people think sneaking into the playoffs, perhaps with a sub .500 record, is some great achievement?

23 wins
then 33 wins
then possibly .500 and playoffs

there is a progression in terms of wins. not saying they're building towards something great BUT there is a tangible progression.

under .500 and playoffs
then 33 wins
then 23 wins
then 33 wins
then possible .500 and playoffs

Looks like we're just back where we started 5 years ago.

Posted by islesfan:

under .500 and playoffs
then 33 wins
then 23 wins
then 33 wins
then possible .500 and playoffs

Looks like we're just back where we started 5 years ago.

Shows how much logic you put into your assessments. The difference is that this team has FAR MORE upside than the team did when we started all this. That doesn't matter to you, since it doesn't fit into your general disdain for this current team.

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by islesfan:

under .500 and playoffs
then 33 wins
then 23 wins
then 33 wins
then possible .500 and playoffs

Looks like we're just back where we started 5 years ago.

Shows how much logic you put into your assessments. The difference is that this team has FAR MORE upside than the team did when we started all this. That doesn't matter to you, since it doesn't fit into your general disdain for this current team.

If you will by good car after buying and trying 5 crappy cars instead of doing research and buying good fist car would you call this a success? Especially if this car is just better that 50% of other cars on the market but you already spend on it more that the best car cost.
Idiots always have excuses but these excuses are good only for idiots...

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by Bippity10:

This is an optimistic post and yet the guy predicts the same amount of wins as many of the haters.

That's really not the point. The point is that he sees the team being able to make the playoffs. The number of wins isn't the issue. From season to season you compete against the competition in your Div and Conf. and whatever number of wins it takes to make the playoffs that's all you need. In a totally pure sense you'd want to be good enough not just to squeak in and be competitive in a weak div or conf., but you'd want at team that can compete against the league and legitimately vie for a title. Still for this team it's not really the number of wins as much as the style of play and level of improvement. I think we all want to see this team be as good as it can be.

In the end I want to see this team make the playoffs and with as much comp as we'll see this year it may end up that 42-44 wins is about right. I hope for more wins as i'm sure most of us do, but the point of the article is that this team will likely be better than many fans and media types predict. 38-42 wins is his range, but he's not saying that they can't win more than that.

What it really comes down to yet again, is that there really is no difference between a lover and a hater. We all predict the same thing. The only difference is the tone in posting.